3. grant

out in the actual proceedings of the convention, there could be, it would seem to us, no difficulty in furnishing some evidence in support of a charge so grave and serious in its character. Not a syllable of evidence was adduced, and an examination of the record of the proceedings of that convention, so far from furnishing any evidence on which to base these charges, in our judgment completely and decisively refutes them.

It is asserted in the memorial to which we have referred that an agreement was entered into on Sunday, the 9th day of May, to "bolt" the county convention held in Cook county. No evidence of any such agreement has been furnished to us, nor to the Committee, although during the session of the Committee, a call was made by the representatives of the seated delegates for the production of such evidence, if any existed.

The memorial neglects to state what clearly and conclusively appears to be the fact, that not only was there no "bolt" premeditated, but that there was none in point of fact.

We deem it unnecessary to enter into the details either of the Cook county convention or of the primary election which preceded the meeting of that convention; it is sufficient to say here that the representations of the seated delegates charged that the grossest frauds had been perpetrated at its primaries, and not only made the charge, but proffered to this Committee ample and decisive evidence to sustain those charges. It was charged, and the evidence was proffered to the Committee, that several of the wards were carried by frauds of the grossest and most conspicuous character, and these charges of fraud were not denied by the gentlemen appearing for the contestants, but one of those gentlemen frankly conceded that frauds were practiced and sought to excuse it merely in the assertion for the support of which he furnished no evidence whatever, and proffered no evidence, that frauds had also been committed on the other side. It appears that the Republican State Committee of the State of Illinois, in 1876, adopted for Cook county the plan of having its delegates vote in said convention, not as a county, but by Senatorial districts. Within the territorial boundaries of Cook county there are seven Senatorial districts from the First to the Seventh, both inclusive. In State convention these Senatorial districts vote as such, and the county,, as a county is not known. Notwithstanding the gross frauds practiced at the primaries at those elections, the delegates known as the Grant delegates carried three Senatorial districts, the First, Third and Fourth; and had a positive and decided majority in the Second. This entitled them to thirty-six delegates to the State convention, that being the number of delegates to which those Senatorial districts were entitled to vote. These primaries were held on Saturday, the 8th of May, and it appears in the issue of the daily papers on Sunday, the Chicago Tribune among the number, the right of these thirtysix delegates was not even questioned, but during that day a scheme was concocted in violation of all the precedents and traditions of the party in Cook county, to smother these Senatorial districts, to deny them the right to select their own delegates, and to send a solid "anti-Grant" delegation to Springfield, notwithstanding the fact that when the call for Cook county was reached, these Senatorial districts were independently called.

This corrupt and dishonest scheme was proclaimed by the public press in the city of Chicago on Monday morning, and a full history of the conference which led to it given in the Chicago Tribune. Mr. Horace M. Singer, whose integrity seems to be unquestioned, a steadfast and life-long Republican, is chairman of the Cook county central committee, and as such chairman, it devolved upon him to call the convention to order. With the utmost fairness, this he proceeded to do, after having consulted with various gentlemen, representing all interests, as to the policy he should adopt.

He decided to himself as presiding officer, in effecting a temporary organization, to place in nomination, Mr. George Struckman, a well known citizen and a prominent "Washburne" delegate. Calling the covention to order, he

proceeded to nominate Mr. Struckman. He was at once interrupted, was unable to be heard; a scene of great confusion ensued.

Some one in the body of the hall proceeded to make another nomination, which was declared carried. Mr. Singer was violently hustled from his position, but returned, and beseeching order, announcing, as he himself, and as the Chicago Tribune in its detailed report of the proceedings of this convention 1 states, his desire only to submit the name of Mr. Struckman to the convention for its action; but utterly unable to secure order, and as Mr. Singer declares, the proceedings being so riotous and tumultuous, that no business could be conducted, declared the convention adjourned to meet at the Palmer House club rooms.

The fact that Mr. Singer declared this convention adjourned is studiously and steadily ignored by the contestants and their representatives, but the fact exists nevertheless, and upon this point we submit the statement made by Mr. Singer himself. It is absurd to call these proceedings thus far the result of any premeditation; there was no conspiracy whatever, except the conspiracy which the Chicago Tribune promulgated to stifle the voice of three Senatorial districts in that convention, and to deprive them of their right to the selection of delegates to the State convention.

At close of the description of this conspiracy, thus to stifle the voice of three Senatorial districts, the Chicago Tribune in its article already referred to, says: "In the appointment of this committee, the business of the morning was ended, so far as preliminaries were concerned, and the delegates marched through the pouring rain to Farwell Hall, where the scalping was expected to begin at ten o'clock, sharp."

This is all the conspiracy, and the only conspiracy, of the existence of which any proof was offered to this Committee. Upon the adjournment of the convention by Mr. Singer, a large body of delegates repaired, pursuant to the adjournment, to the club rooms of the Palmer House, where they were called to order by Mr. Singer, and an organization was effected.

Ninety-two delegates were selected by Senatorial districts, and upon the assembling of the State convention appeared there, contesting the right of the so-called "Farwell Hall" delegation. The fragment left of the "Farwell Hall" convention proceeded to its work, threw out the regularly elected delegates from the Twelfth ward, thus securing a majority of the Second Congressional district; seated the fraudulently elected delegates of the First ward, thus securing another Congressional district; selected their ninety-two delegates to Springfield, and it is proper to remark, selected their delegates by Senatorial districts, the result being that the delegates from the First, Third and Fourth Senatorial districts were selected by the delegates from the other Senatorial districts, thus recognizing the call of the State convention, and thus recognizing clearly and emphatically the right of each Senatorial district to elect its own delegates. Appearing before the State convention, the State Central Committee, recognizing the contest, gave to both delegations the privilege of seats in the gallery of the convention hall. A committee on credentials was selected, composed of one from each Congressional district; to which committee the whole question was submitted, and three reports were made, one recommending the seating of fifty-six of the "Farwell Hall" delegates, and thirty-six of the "Palmer House" delegation; another recommending the seating of the entire "Palmer House" delegation; upon which no action was taken by the convention; and a third recommending the seating of the entire "Farwell Hall" delegation. There certainly was no effort to stifle discussion upon this contest before the committee on credentials in the State convention. That committee had the question under consideration for nearly a day and a half before submitting these reports.

Upon the presentation of these reports to the State convention time was alloted to each side there represented to present its case through its own chosen representatives, and both sides were fully and thoroughly heard. First,

upon the report recommending the seating of the entire Farwell Hall delegation, which was rejected by a majority of eighty, which has been erroneously stated to be a majority of only thirty-eight. The question then came up on the report recommending the admission of fifty-six of the Farwell Hall delegation, and thirty-six of the Palmer House delegation, which was adopted by the convention by a majority of eighty; whereupon the admitted delegates immediately took their seats in the convention, and participated in all the subsequent proceedings.

A permanent organization being effected, a resolution was offered that the delegates to the National Convention be selected by a committee of one from each Congressional district, to be appointed by the chair. This motion led to long and animated discussions, consuming many hours, and was finally adopted by a positive majority. The chair named a committee, and that committee recommended as delegates to the National Convention the re-seated delegates, selecting two from each Congressional district pursuant to the call of the National Committee, and four delegates from the State-at-large.

Upon the motion to adopt the report of that committee discussion was had, and the report was adopted by a decisive and positive majority. All the delegates thus selected, and whose selection was thus reviewed and endorsed by the action of the State convention, appear before this Convention with their credentials regularly signed by the President and Secretary of the State convention. The names of no other delegates were submitted to that convention for its action, and we can only know that other delegates were selected in any other form by the statements which have been made before the committee, for it is conceded upon all hands that, whatever other selections of delegates may have been made, such selections were never presented to the convention for its action, and no report of such selections was ever made, or evidence furnished to the State convention, save such as may be embodied in the protests filed by these various Congressional districts as the convention was about closing its deliberations.

The call for the State convention is as follows:

"ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION.

"HEADQUARTERS REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE,

"February 25, 1880.

"The Republican voters of Illinois are requested to elect delegates to a Republican State convention, to be held in the city of Springfield on Wednesday, May 19, 1880, at the hour of twelve, noon, for the purpose of electing"Forty-two delegates to the Republican National Convention, to be held at Chicago, June 2, 1880.

"Also for nominating candidates to be voted for at the November election of 1880, to fill the following offices, to-wit:

Here follows the names of the counties, and opposite each the vote cast in such county in 1876, and the number of delegates allotted to such county, excepting that no delegates were allotted to Cook county as a county, but to each of the seven Senatorial districts in said county, as follows:

"Governor.

"Lieutenant-Governor.

"Secretary of State.

"Auditor of Public Accounts.

"State Treasurer.

"Attorney General.

'Two Presidential Electors-at-large and nineteen district Electors..

"The basis of representation will be the vote cast for the Republican Presidential Electors at the election in 1876, to-wit: One delegate for every 400 votes, and one for each fraction of 200 votes.

"The following shows the number of votes cast, and the number of delegates each county will be entitled to send, to-wit:

From this call it appears that the authority, which was to select delegates to the National Convention, was not a congregation of Congressional districts, nor is there any convention called of Congressional districts. It is a call for a convention of Republicans of the State of Illinois, for the purpose, among others, of selecting for the entire State forty-two delegates to the National Convention. Responding to this call, clear and unmisunderstandable on its face, various delegates, 693 in number, assembled in Springfield. When that body became organized it was a State convention. It spoke not for one Congressional district nor for twenty, as such, but for the State as a political entity. It assembled to express the will of the Republicans of Illinois, that will to find its expression through the action of the majority of the Republicans of the entire State there assembled. In the expression of its preferences for candidates, the whole State spoke, and it is absurd to say, that because in the indication of such preferences, one-third of the convention were defeated in the preferences which they held, they were therefore disfranchised. In bodies of this character the minority or the majority must rule. There can be no division of rule. And the majority of the Republicans of the State of Illinois, assembled in State convention, pursuant to the call, proceeding_from the legitimate, official source, declared their preference for Ulysses S. Grant, and instructed the delegates to the convention to vote as a unit for him. Is this Convntion to say that the majority of the convention of the State of Illinois possessed no such power?

Will this Convention undertake to say, and will the country justify it in saying, that the majority of the people in so great a State shall not be permitted to express their preferences on questions of this character, and that if they have clear and distinct preferences they shall be utterly helpless in the selection of the methods by which that preference is to be made effectual? It is absurd upon the face of it to say that Illinois, or any other State, has the right to instruct its delegates to vote for a particular candidate, and yet has not the power to make such instruction effectual and binding.

It is absurd to say that a great State possessing this power of giving expression to its will, and the will of its majority, possesses no means for preventing the defeat of that will by violated instructions, by broken pledges, or by corrupted faith.

The Republicans of the State of Illinois, and indeed of every other State in this Union, will ere long be alive to the danger which environs the rights of the majority; will ere long see that the enforcement of those rights cannot depend alone on a mere declaration of what that majority's will is, but must be clothed with a power of executing and asserting it. And if this will, thus expressed, is in danger of being defeated by fraud, by trickery or corruption, the State thus imperiled has the right to place as the exponents of its will, men in position who cannot be corrupted, and whom no agencies of political treachery or fraud can reach. This was precisely what the majority of the Re

publicans of the State of Illinois, in State convention assembled, undertook to do and succeeded in doing.

Since the Republican party has had an existence, there has been but one instance where the Republicans of the State failed to instruct their delegates to a National Convention to vote as a unit. They were instructed to vote for Lincoln on precisely the same terms as the State delegation were instructed to vote for Grant. There has, fortunately, in the political history of the State of Illinois, as appears, been no instance in which any delegate thus instructed has ever deemed it wise or prudent to undertake to violate those instructions. There has been but one instance in which those instructions were not given; that was in 1876; when the positive majority of the convention favored the nomination of Mr. Blaine; by a mere oversight the formality of instructions was omitted, and delegates, taking advantage of it, voted against the clearly known will of the convention, and practically defeated the nomination of Mr. Blaine. We are assured that it is but a historical truth, that in 1876 not a delegate could by any possibility have found a place as such, had his opposition to Mr. Blaine been announced.

The inquiry, then, resolves itself simply into this: Had the State convention the right to determine the manner in which delegates to the National Convention should be selected? This is the state of the question, and all there is substantially in the controversy; and this branch of the subject may be treated in two parts,-First, as to the matter of precedent; and, Second, as to the inherent rights of State conventions to regulate and direct, without supervision or control, the order and methods of their business, and the performance of their political duties.

First. Examining the history of the conventions of the State of Illinois, we have discovered that in every instance the convention itself has set in motion the machinery, and has determined the methods, by which delegates to the National Conventions have been elected and appointed.

1. In 1856, the district delegates were requested to suggest names of delegates to the National Convention, and candidates for Presidential Electors for the State-at-large, were recommended by a committee appointed by the chair.

2. In 1860, a committee called a "nominating committee" "selected" by the district delegations, "presented" a list of delegates and Electors for the State-at-large, and it was "received" by the convention. It was subsequently "ordered" that the district delegations hand in a list of district delegates and Electors, which was done. At that convention the president was authorized to "appoint" a State Central Committee,-a duty which he performed after the convention adjourned.

3. In 1864, delegates to the National Convention, members of the State Central Committee, and Electors of the State-at-large, (respectively) were "nominated" by a committee composed of one member from each Congressional district, and the district delegations were authorized to select one of each of these for their districts severally. The report of the "nominating committee" was formally adopted by the convention, except as to one Electorthe report being amended by the substitution by the convention of the name of Gen. B. M. Prentiss for that of T. J: Henderson.

4. In 1868, a committee to choose Electors and delegates to the National Convention was appointed, and its report was formally “adopted” by the convention.

5. In 1872, the names of members of five committees-the last being on delegates and Electors were presented from the several districts, under authority of a resolution adopted by the convention.

6. In 1876, the same committee were authorized to be appointed as in 1872, and the same general policy pursued.